I haven't yet had time to contact anyone who could be able to help clarify the potential for copyright infringement issues here in the EnviroLink forums. However, while searching the matter on the Internet, I came across the following resource and I learned a few things of which I wasn't aware:

Please note the feature clearly states permission granted by the author with regard to posting this link.

We should also be aware that the transfer and/or posting of pictures can be in and of itself a violation of copyright law regardless whether the production actually carries a formal copyright. In this respect, all photos I have posted are in violation of copyright laws, and should be removed.

Darn it! I hate being wrong.

*******************Josh told me....because I asked him.....that photos are OK if sandwiched between our ' img' facility.I'll find the relevant bits and PM them to you.

I understand the rules as they are written, and will (as should everyone else) abide by them. However, a question was raised regarding the potential for copyright infringement, or what constitutes it and it will be addressed. I have submitted a request to the Dean of the Harvard School of Law to see if he will help us in this issue. I have not yet received a response.

In lieu of this, the following link was sent to me as it does address infringement:

PLEASE NOTE: Before posting this link, I contacted the site administrators to request permission to link to the website. This is the response I received:

Quote:

"Sure. Linking is not only encouraged, it is appreciated! Almost all the publishers we work with encourage and appreciate linking, and don't expect any compensation, even if the site is a commercial site. It is only when people or websites wish to reprint and/or republish the entire articles, that the publishers expect the user/site to obtain permission and, in some cases, to pay for the reproduction.

Not usually as long as it is not overly graphic or overly offensive you should be fine.

I don't get it, why then is written articles, even in part, deleted yet pictures not because both would be an infringement of copyright if it came down to it would it not? If a picture has copyright printed on it then it belongs to the creator and permission should be asked should it not?

Not usually as long as it is not overly graphic or overly offensive you should be fine.

I don't get it, why then is written articles, even in part, deleted yet pictures not because both would be an infringement of copyright if it came down to it would it not? If a picture has copyright printed on it then it belongs to the creator and permission should be asked should it not?

These are what the rules are at this point and it is not a debatable issue. You can post pictures and you can post 2 sentences from articles.

Not usually as long as it is not overly graphic or overly offensive you should be fine.

I don't get it, why then is written articles, even in part, deleted yet pictures not because both would be an infringement of copyright if it came down to it would it not? If a picture has copyright printed on it then it belongs to the creator and permission should be asked should it not?[/quote]

These are what the rules are at this point and it is not a debatable issue. You can post pictures and you can post 2 sentences from articles. [/quote]

Well I hope I don't find any of my photos posted because they are all copyrighted, see what I mean?

The difference is that when pictures are posted here, they are not, in fact, copied from where they originated. You can only post an inline image, which means you are linking to the full original work, as intended by the poster of the image.

The difference is that when pictures are posted here, they are not, in fact, copied from where they originated. You can only post an inline image, which means you are linking to the full original work, as intended by the poster of the image.

URL linked, thanks for clearing that up Josh.

Hows family life Josh? Best wished to the wife and kids from me and mine